RATILAL PREMABHAI KANTHARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of removal from service and the order of the Appellate Authority upholding the same, the applicant is before this Tribunal for the second time.

(2.) THE applicant was served with a memorandum of charge dated 04.07.2002 by the Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal), Bardoli North Sub Division, Bardoli. Pursuant to the said memorandum of charge dated 04.07.2002 an enquiry was held and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service by the order dated 28.02.2004. As against the order of removal from service dated 28.02.2004, the applicant preferred an appeal and the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.03.2005. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority dated 28.02.2004 and 01.03.2005 respectively, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 204/2005 and the Tribunal by order dated 31.03.2006 vide Annexure A -11 allowed the said O.A. holding that the memorandum of charge dated 04.07.2002 is void ab initio and directed that the applicant should be reinstated in service forthwith and held that he is entitled to all the consequential benefits. The Tribunal also directed that the arrears should be paid to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy the said order failing which interest @ 9% shall be payable beyond the stipulated period. As against the order of this Tribunal dated 31.03.2006 in the said O.A. No. 204/2005, the respondents herein preferred a Special Civil Application (SCA) No. 19796/2006 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, vide its order dated 06.10.2006 dismissed the SCA No. 19796/2006 observing that the order of this Tribunal dated 31.03.2006 in the said O.A. No. 204/2005 does not contain any direction restraining the department from initiating fresh inquiry against the respondent -delinquent in accordance with law.

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice of the O.A., the respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply contending that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The respondents have taken a specific contention that there is no bar for issuing the memorandum of charges dated 29.06.2007 vide Annexure A -4 which came to be issued in view of the specific observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 19796/2006 vide Annexure A -10. The respondents have also submitted that the enquiry was conducted against in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the rules and adhering to the principles of natural justice.